How Low Socioeconomic Status Affects 2-Year Hormonal Trajectories in Children

Disparities by socioeconomic status (SES) are seen for numerous mental and physical illnesses, and yet understanding of the pathways to health disparities is limited. We tested whether SES alters longitudinal trajectories of cortisol output and what types of psychosocial factors could account for these links. Fifty healthy children collected saliva samples (four times per day for 2 days) at 6-month intervals for 2 years. At baseline, families were interviewed about SES and psychosocial factors. Lower-SES children displayed greater 2-year increases in daily cortisol output compared with higher-SES children. These effects were partially mediated by children’s perceptions of threat and by family chaos. These findings may help explain, and provide some first steps toward ameliorating, low-SES children’s vulnerability to health problems later in life by identifying the tendency to perceive threat in ambiguous situations and experiences of chaos as factors that link low SES to 2-year hormonal trajectories.</p

Psychological Stress and Disease

Despite widespread public belief that psychological stress leads to disease, the biomedical community remains skeptical of this conclusion. In this Commentary, we discuss the plausibility of the belief that stress contributes to a variety of disease processes and summarize the role of stress in 4 major diseases: clinical depression, cardiovascular disease (CVD), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/AIDS, and cancer.</p

Giving up on unattainable goals: benefits for health?

Three studies examined associations between goal disengagement and goal reengagement tendencies and indicators of physical health (e.g., health problems, cortisol rhythms, sleep efficiency). Based on research showing that goal adjustment tendencies are associated with subjective well-being, the authors predicted that people who are better able to disengage from unattainable goals and reengage with alternative goals also may experience better physical health. Across the three studies, the findings demonstrate that the ability to disengage from unattainable goals is associated with better self-reported health and more normative patterns of diurnal cortisol secretion. Goal reengagement, by contrast, was unrelated to indicators of physical health but buffered some of the adverse effects of difficulty with goal disengagement. The results also indicate that subjective well-being can mediate the associations between goal disengagement tendencies and physical health.</p

Adaptive self-regulation of unattainable goals: goal disengagement, goal reengagement, and subjective well-being.

Three studies examined associations between goal disengagement, goal reengagement, and subjective well-being. In Study 1, 115 undergraduates reported on the extent to which they were able to abandon unattainable goals and reengage their efforts in alternative goals. Study 2 examined the importance of goal disengagement and goal reengagement in groups of young adults and older adults (N = 120). In Study 3, a sample of parents of children with cancer and parents of medically healthy children was examined (N = 45). The findings confirmed that goal disengagement and goal reengagement can be associated with ratings of high subjective well-being. In addition, the results showed that goal disengagement and goal reengagement can have interactive effects on subjective well-being. The importance of the findings for effective self-regulation and successful development are discussed.</p

Is it beneficial to involve a family member? A meta-analysis of psychosocial interventions for chronic illness.

Links between chronic illness and family relationships have led to psychosocial interventions targeted at the patient's closest family member or both patient and family member. The authors conducted a meta-analytic review of randomized studies comparing these interventions with usual medical care (k=70), focusing on patient outcomes (depression, anxiety, relationship satisfaction, disability, and mortality) and family member outcomes (depression, anxiety, relationship satisfaction, and caregiving burden). Among patients, interventions had positive effects on depression when the spouse was included and, in some cases, on mortality. Among family members, positive effects were found for caregiving burden, depression, and anxiety; these effects were strongest for nondementing illnesses and for interventions that targeted only the family member and that addressed relationship issues. Although statistically significant aggregate effects were found, they were generally small in magnitude. These findings provide guidance in developing future interventions in this area.</p